Misplaced Pages

Same-sex marriage: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:33, 18 November 2010 view sourceDestinero (talk | contribs)1,490 edits →Children and the family: not needed← Previous edit Revision as of 10:42, 18 November 2010 view source ErrantX (talk | contribs)Administrators21,973 edits →Children and the family: uh... wording again, see history of LGBT parenting - WP:WEASELNext edit →
Line 252: Line 252:
Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.<ref name="amici"/><ref name=pediatrics /><ref name=cpa>Canadian Psychological Association: </ref><ref name=lamb>Michael Lamb, Ph.D.: </ref> Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.<ref name="amici"/><ref name=pediatrics /><ref name=cpa>Canadian Psychological Association: </ref><ref name=lamb>Michael Lamb, Ph.D.: </ref>


The scientific research has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.<ref name=cpa2006></ref><ref name="apsp"/><ref name="amici2010"/> This consensus is accepted beyond dispute in the field.<ref name=florida></ref><ref name=perry></ref><ref></ref><ref name=lamb>], </ref> The scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.<ref name=cpa2006></ref><ref name="apsp"/><ref name="amici2010"/> This consensus is accepted beyond dispute in the field.<ref name=florida></ref><ref name=perry></ref><ref></ref><ref name=lamb>], </ref>


===Education controversy=== ===Education controversy===

Revision as of 10:42, 18 November 2010

Part of the LGBTQ rights series
Legal status of
same-sex unions
Marriage

Recognized

Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
Minimal recognition
See also
Notes
  1. ^ Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
  2. Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands.
  3. Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories.
  4. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
  5. Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
  6. ^ The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
  7. A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
  8. Guardianship agreements, conferring some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care.
  9. Inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
  10. Courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
  11. Some cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
  12. Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse recognized for residency rights.
  13. Hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status.
  1. ^ Not yet in effect.
LGBTQ portal

Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflicts arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union, which either grant equal rights as marriage or limited rights in comparison to marriage), or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term "marriage" should be applied.

Denying same-sex couples legal access to marriage and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation according to several American scientific bodies. Financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage, and children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society’s institutions. Court documents filed by American scientific associations also state that singling out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage both stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them. Research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon not recognizing same-sex marriage.

Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law, and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships. Opposition to same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word "marriage" as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, and tradition. Supporters of same-sex marriage often attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.

Etymology and terminological usage

The word "marriage" comes from Old French mariage, from marier ("to marry"), from Latin maritare ("to marry", literally "give in marriage"), from maritus ("lover", "nuptial"), from mas ("male", "masculine", "of the male sex").

Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures. Edvard Westermarck defined marriage in the 1922 edition of The History of Human Marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognized as custom or law and involves certain rights and duties" to the individuals who enter into it, and any children born from it. Such definitions failed to recognize same-sex marriages that have been documented around the world, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.

In lexicography, words have changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo. In the last 10 years, in the English-speaking world, all major dictionaries have either dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.

Many proponents of same-sex marriages use the term marriage equality to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights. Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions, and use the term traditional marriage to mean marriages between one man and one woman.

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state. Jennifer Roback Morse, the president of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute project, claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage.

Use in print and online media

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriages adopt an editorial style policy of placing the word marriage in quotation marks ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice. Some socially conservative online publications, such as WorldNetDaily and Baptist Press, still follow the practice. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media argues for use of quotation marks on the grounds that marriage is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments. Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. The Associated Press warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriages of gay and lesbian couples are somehow legally different from those of opposite-sex couples.

History

Main articles: History of same-sex unions and Timeline of same-sex marriage

Ancient

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex "marriages" occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a "marriage" ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles. It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called "marriage" between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases). Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her." Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

Modern

In October 1989, Denmark became the first country to recognize same-sex unions in the form of "registered partnerships". In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010) and Argentina (2010). In Mexico same sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated. 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) currently live in areas that recognise same-sex marriage.

Current status

Main articles: Status of same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world
Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse, unions and expression
Same-sex intercourse illegal. Penalties:
  Death   Prison; death not enforced
  Death under militias   Prison, with arrests or detention
  Prison, not enforced
Same-sex intercourse legal. Recognition of unions:
  Marriage   Extraterritorial marriage
  Civil unions   Limited domestic
  Limited foreign   Optional certification
  None   Restrictions of expression, not enforced
  Restrictions of association with arrests or detention

No imprisonment in the past three years or moratorium on law.
Marriage not available locally. Some jurisdictions may perform other types of partnerships.

Country-wide recognition

Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but these marriages must be recognized by all Mexican states. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions.

Subject debated

Nepal

In November 2008, Nepal's highest court issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights. Based on the court recommendation the government announced its intention to introduce a same-sex marriage bill by 2010. Same-sex marriage and protection for sexual minorities will be included in the new Nepalese constitution currently being drafted.

Europe

Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe

The granting and honoring of same-sex marriages is also currently being considered by several countries in Europe.

In early July 2009, the Slovenian minister of interior announced that it is likely that Slovenia will legalize same-sex marriage in the near future, following government agreement that same-sex couples deserve to be entitled to all of the same benefits of opposite-sex couples. In December 2009, the government approved a bill allowing same-sex marriage and adoption and sent it to parliament. The new government of Luxembourg has also announced its intention to legalize same-sex marriage. In France in 2006, a 30-member non-quorum parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453-page Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriages. Finland may legalize same-sex marriage after the 2011 parliamentary elections. Minister of Justice Tuija Brax has said her Ministry is preparing a reform to amend the Marriage Act towards gay marriage by 2012. There is active consideration of marriage equality within political parties in the United Kingdom (notably the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats).

Latin America

Some Latin American nations have taken up such proposals, Justice Minister of Argentina worked to submit a gender neutral law draft before the Congress. On July 14, 2010 the Argentine Senate prepared to vote on a bill granting the broadest marital protections to gay people in Latin America. It was supported by the Government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and opposed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Polls showed that nearly 70 percent of Argentines support giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals. Same-sex marriage became a nationwide law after the Senate approved it on July 15, 2010.

On December 21, 2009, Mexico City's Legislative Assembly legalized same-sex marriages and adoption by same-sex couples. The law was enacted eight days later and became effective in early March 2010. Since then, same-sex marriage bills have been proposed in other Mexican states such as Morelos, Puebla, and Sonora. Michoacán, Tabasco, and Tamaulipas are expected to follow later in 2010. On August 10, 2010, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that while not every state must grant same-sex marriages, they must all recognize those performed where they are legal.

Oceania

Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriages at the federal level, but the current Labor Party government favors synchronized state and territory registered partnership legislation (as in Tasmania and Victoria. The Australian Capital Territory offers civil partnerships. New Zealand's Parliament rejected a bill that would have prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in New Zealand in December 2005. However, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still only recognizes marriage rights for opposite-sex couples. The marriage laws consider transsexuals who have undergone reassignment surgery as having changed sex for legal purposes, following Family Court and High Court of New Zealand decisions in 1995.

Currently there is a law before the Tasmanian legislative Council which would recognise gay marriages in Tasmania, which were performed overseas or in another state.

Israel

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Israel

Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to honor same-sex marriages granted in other countries even though Israel does not recognize such marriages performed under its own jurisdiction. A bill was raised in the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006.

Africa

Same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa on November 30, 2006 when the Civil Unions Bill was enacted after having been passed by the South African Parliament earlier that month. A ruling by the Constitutional Court on December 1, 2005 had imposed a deadline of December 1, 2006 to make same-sex marriage legal. South Africa became the fifth country, the first in Africa, and the second outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2006, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced legislation that prohibits same-sex marriages and criminalizes anyone who "performs, witnesses, aids or abets" such ceremonies. Among the Igbo people of Nigeria, there are circumstances where a marriage between two women is allowed, such as when a woman has no child and the husband dies.

United States

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States

In the United States, although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, same-sex couples can marry in five states and one district (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the District of Columbia) and receive state-level benefits. The states of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Rhode Island do not facilitate same-sex marriages, but do recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Additionally, several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. Thirty-one states have constitutional restrictions limiting marriage to one woman and one man.

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes and allowing for the non-recognition amongst the states.

A 2005 federal district court decision, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, holding that prohibiting recognition of same-sex relationships violated the Constitution was overturned on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 2006, which ruled that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

In 2006, the Supreme Court of Washington concluded that encouraging procreation within the framework of marriage can be seen as a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage between opposite-sex couples.

In 2010, United States District Court for the Northern District of California stated the evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Proponents of excluding same-sex couples from marriage were unable to reply how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects the assumption that the state’s interest in marriage is procreative. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported the contention responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage, proponents’ counsel replied he did not have evidence of this point.

In July 2010, a federal court held key provisions of DOMA unconstitutional; the Department of Justice entered an appeal on October 12, 2010. President Barack Obama is officially opposed to same-sex marriage, although he "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples", a full repeal of DOMA, and called California's Proposition 8 "unnecessary". In August 2010, Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional under the United States Constitution in a federal court case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but the ruling has been stayed pending appeal by a higher court; the judge found the ban unconstitutional, ruling that "Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification". Proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the District Court's ruling, and licensing of marriage ceremonies has been delayed by the 9th Circuit Court issuing a stay until the appeal process is completed; in addition, the 9th Circuit also assured a speedy trial.

International organizations

The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations (not commercial) in most cases are not governed by the laws of the country where their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognize same-sex partnerships without condition. The agencies of the United Nations recognize same-sex marriages if and only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the World Bank does recognize domestic partners.

Other legally recognized same-sex unions

Main article: Civil union

Civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships, or unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation legal status offer varying portions of the legal benefits of marriage and are available to same-sex couples in: Andorra, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. They are also available in parts of Mexico (Coahuila and the Federal District) and the United States (California, Hawai'i, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Washington and the federal District of Columbia)

Many advocates, such as this protester at a demonstration in New York City against California Proposition 8, reject the notion of civil unions. U.S. Same-sex marriage movement activist Evan Wolfson does not feel civil unions are a replacement for full marriage equality.

In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those that grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.

Australia

In Australia, Commonwealth law prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage under the Marriage Act 1961. However, every Australian government jurisdiction provides to de facto same-sex couples a wide range of rights equal to those afforded to de facto opposite-sex couples. These rights are gained without registration, under a status called "unregistered cohabitation". Furthermore, formal domestic partnership registries exist in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Since July 1, 2009, same-sex couples are recognised as de facto partners in a wide range of legislation in every Australian government jurisdiction, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation. In 2007, Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognized same-sex married couple after Grace Abrams had gender-modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.

Europe

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in Europe¹   Marriage   Civil union   Limited domestic recognition (cohabitation)   Limited foreign recognition (residency rights)   Unrecognized   Constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples ¹ May include recent laws or court decisions that have not yet entered into effect.

In Denmark, Finland and Hungary, a registered partnership provides nearly all of the rights of marriage, including joint adoption rights in Denmark. Finland and Greenland have biological adoption only (no joint adoption). These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership", and wherever the word "spouse" appears, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" — thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships.

In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships were introduced in 2005. The law gives civil partners the same benefits and associated legal rights of marriage; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. The one notable exception is the use of courtesy titles by the partner of a male peer or knight. In the first year, 16,100 ceremonies took place. Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to marriage.

Transgender and intersex persons

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
See also: Transsexualism, Legal aspects of transsexualism, and Gender identity

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, the type of external sexual features, or the person's social identification. Consequently, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals may be legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of surgical methods to alter these features. Estimates run as high as 1 percent of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.

In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur. In addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.

In the United Kingdom, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the UK marriages are for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her marriage or civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Such persons are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity.

In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state.

Controversy

This section may contain material not related to the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (April 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
See also: LGBT rights opposition

While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, and that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father.

Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships, while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.

The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

Judicial and legislative

Main article: Marriage (conflict) § Same-sex marriage

A "majority rules" position determines whether same-sex marriage is valid, or void and illegal, based upon whether it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives. In contrast, a "civil rights" view answers the same question by carefully examining both sides of the controversy and seeking a ruling from an impartial judiciary, whether the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is constitutionally guaranteed (or in other countries, required for overriding equality reasons or other civil rights of citizens).

Religion

Main article: Religious arguments about same-sex marriage

Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. One source of controversy is how same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion. Many religious organizations (citing their religious beliefs) refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. Some areas have made special provisions for religious protections.

Many Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in opposing same-sex marriage laws in the United States. Christians opposed to same-sex marriage have claimed that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage, or would be contrary to God's will. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage also comes from the belief that same-sex marriage normalizes homosexual behavior and would encourage it, instead of encouraging resistance to same-sex attraction.

Christian supporters of same-sex marriage have claimed that marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage and provides legal protection for children of gay and lesbian parents. Bible-based arguments for same-sex marriage rights include that the word "homosexual", as found in modern versions of the Bible, is an inaccurate translation of the original texts. Neither Vine's Expository Dictionary nor Strong's Concordance (two significant bible reference works) contains the word "homosexual". There also is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Certain biblical texts used by non-affirming Christian organizations to condemn homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, may refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship lacking any relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships. Supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians is viewed by affirming Christians as a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons. The United Church of Canada asserts that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God", whilst the Yearly Meeting of Quakers in the United Kingdom decided to offer same-sex marriages, though national law permits only civil partnerships.

On July 4, 2005 the United Church of Christ (UCC), at their 25th General Synod, voted to support full legal and religious marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples making it the first mainline Christian denomination in the United States to support and promote same sex marriage equality. The UCC is a liberal Christian denomination with a long history of supporting gay rights, women's rights, African-American civil rights and other issues of social justice.

Unitarian Universalism, a liberal faith tradition, supports marriage equality for same-sex couples. It has taken an active role advocating for LGBT rights and same-sex marriages are often performed in UU congregations.

Judaism, like Christianity, contains varying views on the issue of marriage rights, both politically and religiously, for same-sex couples. Many Orthodox Jews maintain the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriages amongst members of the same sex, but other orthodox rabbis, such as Steven Greenberg, disagree. Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage. The Union for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations) supports the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.

From the Islamic perspective, a majority of Muslim legal scholars cite the rulings of Muhammad and the story of Lot in Sodom as condemnation of homosexuality. Given that Islam views marriage as an exchange between two parties of protection and security for exclusive sexual and reproductive rights, same-sex marriages cannot be considered legal within the constrains of a Muslim marriage.

Buddhist scripture and teachings do not take a consistent stance against homosexuality, and do not specifically proscribe nor endorse same-sex marriage; thus, there is no unified stance for or against the practice.

Wiccan communities are often supportive of same-sex marriages.

Children and the family

Main articles: LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage and the family

Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.

The scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. This consensus is accepted beyond dispute in the field.

Education controversy

The subject of how the legalization of same-sex marriage affects public education is a source of controversy. An argument sometimes used by supporters is that teaching about same-sex marriage in schools will help children to be more open minded by exposing them to different types of families. There is concern from opponents of same-sex marriage that it will undermine parental rights over their children's education.

There is also concern that the information being presented might not be accurate, omits medical, psychological and legal impacts of homosexuality, and might not be appropriate for the age group. There has also been controversy that educators who disagree may be punished.

Effects of same-sex marriage

The American Psychological Association stated in 2004:

The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable ... Denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status ... the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges.

The American Sociological Association stated in 2004:

... a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against lesbians and gay men as well as their children and other dependents by denying access to the protections, benefits, and responsibilities extended automatically to married couples ... we believe that the official justification for the proposed constitutional amendment is based on prejudice rather than empirical research ... the American Sociological Association strongly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006:

The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. CPA asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents’ relationship is recognized and supported by society’s institutions.

The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The United Kingdom's Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated the following. The statement uses the term "civil partnership" and not gay marriage.

... lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes ... the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership ...

Health issues

Recently, several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

In 2010, a Mailman School of Public Health study examining the effects of institutional discrimination on the psychiatric health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals found an increase in psychiatric disorders, including a more than doubling of anxiety disorders, among the LGB population living in states that instituted bans on same-sex marriage. According to the author the study highlighted the importance of abolishing institutional forms of discrimination, including those leading to disparities in the mental health and well-being of LGB individuals. Institutional discrimination is characterized by societal-level conditions that limit the opportunities and access to resources by socially disadvantaged groups.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity. The data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.

Legal issues

Main article: Divorce of same-sex couples

See also

Religion

U.S. specific

Historical

Documentaries and literature

Footnotes

  1. "gay marriage". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  2. Marriage: Both Civil and Religious, Pamela Taylor, The Washington Post, July 31, 2009.
  3. Marriage a Civil Right, not Sacred Rite, Susan Smith, The Washington Post, July 30, 2009; accessed 9/12/2009.
  4. "Decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (PDF). Retrieved August 6, 2010.
  5. ^ American Psychological Association (2004). "Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage" (PDF). Retrieved November 10, 2010.
  6. American Psychiatric Association (2005). "Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage" (PDF). Retrieved November 10, 2010.
  7. American Psychoanalytic Association. "Position Paper On Gay Marriage". Retrieved November 10, 2010.
  8. American Sociological Association. "American Sociological Association Member Resolution on Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment Regarding Marriage". Retrieved November 10, 2010.
  9. ^ "Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellees - Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)" (PDF). Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  10. ^ Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association Cite error: The named reference "cpa2006" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM; et al. (2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics. 118 (1): 349–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279. PMID 16818585. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) available online: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
  12. "Brief of Amici Curiae American Anthropological Association et al., supporting plaintiffs-appellees and urging affirmance - Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)" (PDF). Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  13. ^ American Anthropological Association (2005). "Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association". Retrieved November 10, 2010.
  14. Prop. 8 Challenged in Federal Court, American Foundation for Equal Rights, May 27, 2009.
  15. Abraham, Julie (May). "Public Relations: Why the Rush to Same-Sex Marriage? And Who Stands to Benefit?". The Women's Review of Books. 17 (8): 12–14. doi:10.2307/4023418. its most vocal advocates want gay marriage because marriage stands at the center of a system of legitimization . {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  16. Azzolina, David (2003). "The End of Gay (and the Death of Heterosexuality).(Book Review)". Library Journal: 288. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  17. Warner, Michael (1999). The Trouble with Normal. The Free Press. p. 80.
  18. Church in Ukraine calls Elton John a Sinner In Adoption Inquiry, Joshua Cinelli, New York Daily News, September 16, 2009.
  19. Sharpton chides black churches over homophobia, gay marriage, Southern Voice, Dyana Bagby, January 27, 2006.
  20. Frank: Scalia's legal opinions reveal his homophobia, CNN, March 25, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2009.
  21. Craig A. Rimmerman; Clyde Wilcox (2007). The politics of same-sex marriage. University of Chicago Press. p. 234. ISBN 9780226720012. Clearly homophobia is at the heart of blanket opposition to gay rights policies.
  22. Evan Gerstmann (2004). Same-sex marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9780521009522. Keeping marriage heterosexual and dual gendered clearly has more widespread support than other homophobic policies.
  23. Mathabane, Gail (January 25, 2004). "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought". Usatoday.Com. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
  24. "English etymology of marriage". myEtymology.com. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
  25. Anthropology Matters!, Shirley Fedorak, Broadview Press, 2007, Chapter 11, Page 174
  26. ^ The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage, Kathleen Gough, The Journals of Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1959.
  27. This History of Human Marriage, Volume 1, Edvard Westermarck, Oxford University Press, Chapter 1, Page 26; 1922 edition.
  28. Boy-wives and female husbands: studies of African homosexualities, Stephen O. Murray, Will Roscoe
  29. Revisiting "Woman-Woman Marriage": Notes on Gikuyu Women, Wairimu Ngaruiya Njambi and William O'Brien, William E. NWSA Journal – Volume 12, Number 1, Spring 2000, pp. 1–23
  30. Dictionaries take lead in redefining modern marriage, Washington Times, May 24, 2004.
  31. Webster Makes It Official: Definition of Marriage Has Changed, Martha Neil, American Bar Association, March 23, 2009.
  32. Dictionaries recognize same-sex marriage—who knew?, Daniel Redman, Slate, April 7, 2009; accessed 9/19/2009
  33. "MARRIAGE EQUALITY". Garden State Equality. Retrieved March 14, 2010.
  34. "Marriage 101". Freedom to Marry. Retrieved March 14, 2010.
  35. Gallagher, Maggie. "Traditional Marriage Trifecta in the Making?." Human Events 64.36 (October 20, 2008): 17–17. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. September 30, 2009
  36. Dershowitz, Alan M. (December 3, 2003). "Government Should Quit the Marriage Business". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
  37. "Board of Advisors". Ruth Institute. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  38. Morse, Jennifer Roback (May 20, 2004). "Not a Social Contract". National Review. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
  39. Erik Wemple (February 25, 2008). "Washington Times Scare Quotes Are History". Washington City Paper. Retrieved July 28, 2008.
  40. Kincaid, Cliff (February 26, 2004). "Honest Versus Slanted Journalism". Accuracy In Media. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
  41. Austin Cline. "Washington Times Dismisses Gay "Marriages"". About.com. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
  42. Neill, James (2008). The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies. McFarland. ISBN 9780786435135.
  43. Herdt, Gilbert H. (1993). Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520080966.
  44. Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Reed Business Information, Inc. ISBN 0520078691.
  45. Hinsch, Bret. (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve. University of California Press. pp. 24–25
  46. John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80–85.
  47. Chris Scarre "Chronicles of the Roman Emperors" (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1995). Page 151.
  48. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1969), pp. 24-28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), pp. 43-49.; "Marriages where the partners had conubium were marriages valid in Roman law (iusta matrimonia)" . Compare Ulpian (Tituli Ulpiani 5.3-5: "Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens have conubium with Roman citizens, but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves"; compare also Gaius (Institutionum 1:55-56, 67, 76-80).
  49. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), p. 5.
  50. Eskridge, William N. (1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review. 79 (7). The Romans may have accorded some same-sex unions the legal or cultural status of marriage. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  51. Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History. 32: 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.
  52. "Same-sex marriage around the world". CBC News. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  53. Legislative record of the same-sex marriage bill in Dutch and in French, by the Belgian Senate.
  54. The Associated Press (May 17, 2010). "Portugal's president signs gay marriage bill". Cbc.ca. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  55. "(a news outlet in India) Article dated November 19, 2008". "Hindustan Times". November 19, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  56. Silver, Nate (July 15, 2010). "Politics Done Right: Gay Marriage Chart-of-the-Day". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  58. "Nepal's highest court confirms full rights for LGBT people". Pink News. November 17, 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  59. "Tears of Joy as Nepali Gays Transgender Persons at Supreme Court Decision". Ukgaynews.org.uk. November 17, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  60. "Nepal Supreme Court orders full LGBT rights".
  61. "Nepal SC approves same-sex marriage". Hindustan Times. November 19, 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  62. Total Comments: 0 (November 18, 2008). "Nepal apex court okays same-sex marriage : iGovernment". Igovernment.in. Retrieved November 5, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  63. "Nepal charter to grant gay rights". Hindustan Times. January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
  64. Nelson, Dean (January 19, 2010). "Nepal 'to stage gay weddings on Everest'". London: Telegraph. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
  65. (AFP) – Jul 2, 2009 (July 2, 2009). "Slovenia to legalize same-sex marriage soon: minister". Google.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  66. "Family Law Bill Ready for Parliament". Sta.si. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  67. "The Station Network". Station.lu. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  68. "Executive summary of "Report on the Family and the Rights of Children" prepared by the French National Assembly, Paris, January 25, 2006" (PDF). January 25, 2006. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
  69. "Gender-Neutral Marriage Law Possible by 2012". YLE. Retrieved July 2, 2010.
  70. "Comment:Marriage is the gold standard for gay couples". Pink News. Retrieved August 28, 2010.
  71. Kirkup, James (July 19, 2010). "Gay couples will get equal right to marry". Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved August 28, 2010.
  72. "Aníbal Fernández supports parliamentary debate on same-sex marriages". Buenosairesherald.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  73. Barrionuevo, Alexei (July 13, 2010). "Argentina Senate to Vote on Gay Marriage". The New York Times.
  74. Argentina legalizes Gay Marriage, NY Times. Retrieved July 15, 2010.
  75. Associated Press (March 4, 2010). "Mexico City's gay marriage law takes effect". MSNBC. Retrieved March 6, 2010.
  76. Template:Sp icon José Luis Garcitapia and Dulce Maya (January 22, 2010). "Iniciativa del PT a favor de los matrimonios gay". La Jornada Morelos. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
  77. Template:Sp icon Notimex (January 28, 2010). "PT presenta iniciativa sobre bodas gay en Puebla". El Universal. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
  78. Template:Sp icon Ulises Gutiérrez (January 13, 2010). "Proponen matrimonio homosexual en Sonora". La Jornada. Retrieved January 16, 2010.
  79. Template:Sp icon Nicolás Casimiro (December 25, 2009). "Matrimonios gay y despenalización del aborto, en la agenda del PRD para 2010". Quadratín. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
  80. Template:Sp icon Fernando Hernández (January 15, 2010). "A favor PRI y PRD del aborto y matrimonios gays". El Heraldo de Tabasco. Retrieved January 21, 2010.
  81. Template:Sp icon Roberto Aguilar (February 1, 2010). "Buscan firmas para bodas gay en Tamaulipas". El Universal. Retrieved 2. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  82. "Supreme court rules gay weddings valid in all Mexico". BBC News. August 10, 2010.
  83. "Tasmania moves to recognise same-sex unions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. September 1, 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  84. African gays and lesbians combat bias, Michael Fleshman, Africa Renewal, Vol.21 #1 (April 2007), page 12.
  85. Tradition of same gender marriage in Igboland, Leo Igwe, Nigerian Tribune, June 19, 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
  87. "LGBT Laws of NJ". HRC. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  88. "LGBT Laws of Maryland". HRC. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  89. Terrence Dopp (December 3, 2009). "New Jersey May Provide Next Gay Marriage Test After N.Y. Loss". Bloomberg. Retrieved July 15, 2010.
  90. "US CODE: Title 1,7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"". .law.cornell.edu. April 7, 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  91. No. 75934-1, p. 41 (Supreme Court of Washington July 26, 2006).
  92. No. 09-2292 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California August 4, 2010).
  93. Geidner, Chris (July 8, 2010). "Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection". Metro Weekly. Retrieved July 8, 2010.
  94. "DOMA decisions released". Baywindows.com. July 8, 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  95. Boston Globe: "Feds Appeal Mass Rulings against U.S. Marriage Law," October 12, 2010. Retrieved October 13, 2010.
  96. "ElectionCenter2008". CNN. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
  97. "the WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Civil Rights". Retrieved October 3, 2009.
  98. "Barack Obama on LBGT Rights" (PDF). Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  99. Harris, Chris (November 1, 2008). "Did Barack Obama Answer Your Question? – THINK MTV". Mtv.com. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
  100. "Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in Calif". CBS News. August 4, 2010.
  101. "Marriage Equality in California On Hold For Now « Human Rights Campaign". HRC Back Story. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  102. UN Secretary-General Bulletin ST/SGB/2004/13, 2004
  103. "Jobs — Compensation & Benefits". The World Bank Group. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
  104. Tom Ramstack (January 11, 2010). "Congress Considers Outcome of D.C. Gay Marriage Legislation". AHN.
  105. NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8, Andy Towle, Towelroad.com, November 13, 2008. Retrieved November 14, 2008.
  106. Interview with Evan Wolfson, David Shankbone, Wikinews, September 30, 2007.
  107. John R. Bohrer (December 14, 2006). "NJ Civil Unions: Nothing to Celebrate". The Huffington Post.
  108. "Sweeping gay law reform finally passes". Theage.com.au. November 27, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  109. Petersen, Terje (October 16, 2007). "Limited govt equals freedom for same-sex couples". Abc.net.au. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  110. Denis Campbell. "Honeymoon is over for gay weddings". Guardian. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  111. (Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000)
  112. "How common is intersex?". Intersex Society of North America. Retrieved March 8, 2007.
  113. Bockting, Walter, Autumn Benner, and Eli Coleman. "Gay and Bisexual Identity Development Among Female-to-Male Transsexuals in North America: Emergence of a Transgender Sexuality." Archives of Sexual Behavior 38.5 (Oct. 2009): 688–701. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. September 29, 2009
  114. SCHWARTZ, JOHN. "U.S. Defends Marriage Law." New York Times (September 19, 2009): 12. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. September 29, 2009
  115. ^ "Banned in Boston". Weeklystandard.com. May 5, 2006. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  116. Blankenhorn, David (September 19, 2008). "Protecting marriage to protect children". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  117. "See discussion of prenuptial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw". Family.findlaw.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  118. Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Carpenter's writings at http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html.
  119. "Poll: Calif. gay marriage ban driven by religion." By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer. Thursday, December 4, 2008.
  120. "Divisions persist over gay marriage ban" By Rajesh Mirchandani, BBC News, Los Angeles. Wednesday, November 12, 2008.
  121. "Government's response". Number10.gov.uk. April 13, 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  122. "Same-Sex Marriage and Freedom of Religion". Chrc-ccdp.ca. October 13, 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  123. "The Supreme Court decision". Cbc.ca. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  124. Latest activity 7 hours ago (September 5, 2008). "Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts". Amazon.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  125. "The Civil Partnership Act 2004, Same-Sex Marriage and the Church of England". Journals.cambridge.org. July 31, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  126. Cameron, Scott (June 16, 2008). "Gay Marriage: Conflict Between Equal Rights and Religious Freedom?". Npr.org. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  127. "Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story". Npr.org. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  128. "Religious Freedom Concerns are Real with Same-Sex Marriage". Meridianmagazine.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  129. Same-Sex Marriage Laws Pose Protection Quandary
  130. See e.g., Southern Baptist Convention, On Same-Sex Marriage (adopted 2003) http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128 (visited January 20, 2008).
  131. "The Religious Right and Anti-Gay Speech: Messengers of Love or Purveyors of Hate?". Matthew Shepard Online Resources. Archived from the original on December 19, 2002.
  132. ^ "The Christian Case Against Same-Sex Marriage" (PDF). Association of Politically Active Christians. January 2008. Retrieved October 7, 2009.
  133. Gay Marriage Questions
  134. "A Biblical Perspective on Same-Sex "Marriage" and Civil Unions" (PDF). Association of Politically Active Christians. January 2009. Retrieved October 7, 2009.
  135. "America's Rabbi | Once Again Democrats Bow to "Unions"". Caucusforamerica.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  136. White, Mel. "What the Bible Says — And Doesn't Say — About Homosexuality". Soulforce. Retrieved October 7, 2009.
  137. "The "Clobber" Passages". gaychurch.org. Retrieved October 7, 2009.
  138. "Resources". Metropolitan Community Church. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  139. Davis, Richard. "Before you Begin Studying the "Clobber" Passages". Freedom In Christ. Archived from the original on December 19, 2005. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  140. "D025 – Anglican Communion: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion". Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  141. "Would Jesus Discriminate?". Metropolitan Community Church. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  142. "Equality Rights". United Church of Canada. 2007. Archived from the original on March 13, 2008. Retrieved November 9, 2008.
  143. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Orthodox Response to Same-Sex Marriage, NY Jewish Week (Mar. 26, 2004) http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/ou_resp_same_sex_marriage/ (visited January 20, 2008); Rabbinical Council of America, Joining with Three Other Orthodox Organizations, RCA Opposes Redefinition of Marriage in New York State (June 21, 2007) http://www.rabbis.org/news/index.cfm?type=policies (visited January 20, 2008)
  144. Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, Homosexuality, Human Dignity, & Halakhah: A Combined Responsum for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (approved by a majority of the Committee on Dec. 6, 2006) at http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/Dorff_Nevins_Reisner_Final.pdf (visited January 20, 2008)
  145. "Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples". Union for Reform Judaism. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  146. "FAQ's on Reconstructionist Approaches to Jewish ideas and Practices". Jewish Reconstructionist Federation. 2008. Retrieved May 17, 2008.
  147. "Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage in Islam on Patheos". Patheos.com. May 12, 2009. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  148. Bhikkhu, Mettanando (July 13, 2005). "Will gay marriage be allowed by Buddhists in Thailand?". Buddhist Channel. Bangkok Post. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  149. Canadian Psychological Association: Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
  150. ^ Michael Lamb, Ph.D.: Affidavit – United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (2009) Cite error: The named reference "lamb" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  151. Cite error: The named reference apsp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  152. Cite error: The named reference amici2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  153. Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010 Florida Department of Children and Families, Appellant, vs. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., Appellees.
  154. Kristin M. Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger – Order
  155. Varnum v. Brien
  156. "Gay marriage opponents put California schools in centre of debate: Adverts claim public schools will teach same-sex marriage if measure fails to overturn state supreme court decision". Guardian. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  157. "España: 18 argumentos contra la ley del "matrimonio" homosexual". Esposiblelaesperanza.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  158. "Same-sex marriage and Mass. education". Kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  159. "Marriage Rights and Parental Rights: Parents, the State, and Proposition 8". Papers.ssrn.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  160. Parents face court action for removing children from gay history lessons
  161. "Same-Sex "Marriage" and Schools: Critical Review of the GLSEN Same-Sex "Marriage" Curriculum" (PDF). Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  162. Experts On Homosexuality Critique GLSEN's Same-Sex Marriage Curriculum
  163. ^ GetSet! Communications. "Same-Sex Marriage Has Changed Canada". Realwomenca.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  164. Gay literature in schools (February 25, 2009). "Gay literature in schools". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  165. Teacher who complained about training day 'promoting gay rights' is cleared
  166. "School counselor targeted for supporting Maine's pro-marriage Question 1". Catholicnewsagency.com. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  167. Cite error: The named reference sociological was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  168. Royal College of Psychiatrists. "Royal College of Psychiatrists' Position Statement on Sexual Orientation". Retrieved November 13, 2010.
  169. Price, M. "UPFRONT — Research uncovers the stress created by same-sex marriage bans" in Monitor on Psychology, Volume 40, No. 1, page 10, January 2009. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  170. Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen "Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self​-​concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(4), October 2007, 447–457.
  171. Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(3), July 2007, 306–319.
  172. Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health: Lesbian, gay, bisexual individuals risk psychiatric disorders from discriminatory policies
  173. Dr. Brian Mustanski (March 22, 2010). "New study suggests bans on gay marriage hurt mental health of LGB people". Psychology Today. Retrieved November 8, 2010.
  174. Rauch, Jonathan. "For Better or Worse?" The case for gay (and straight) marriage. The New Republic, May 6, 1996.
  175. Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
  176. ^ Herek, Gregory M. "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective." American Psychologist, Vol 61(6), September 2006, 607–621.
  177. Emory researchers: Gay marriage bans increase HIV infections
  178. Contact:  Elaine Justice: 404.727.0643. "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV infections". Emory.edu. Retrieved November 5, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  179. Francis, AM; Mialon, HM (March 2010). "Tolerance and HIV" (PDF). Journal of Health Economics. 29 (2): 250–267. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.11.016. PMID 20036431. Retrieved July 19, 2010.

Bibliography

This "Further reading" section may need cleanup. Please read the editing guide and help improve the section. (August 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Sources :

  • Boswell, John (1995). The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe. New York: Simon Harper and Collins. ISBN 0002555085.
  • Boswell, John (1994). Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books. ISBN 0679432280.
  • Emanuele Calò, Matrimonio à la carte — Matrimoni, convivenze registrate e divorzi dopo l'intervento comunitario, Milano, Giuffrè, 2009
  • Caramagno, Thomas C. (2002). Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0275977218.
  • Cere, Daniel (2004). Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0773528954.
  • Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0465009573.
  • Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1590524314. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)
  • Larocque, Sylvain (2006). Gay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. ISBN 1550289276.
  • Moats, David (2004). Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage. New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc. ISBN 015101017X.
  • Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. ISBN 0805078150.
  • Spedale, Darren (2006). Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195187512.
  • Truluck, Rembert S. (2000). Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse. Gaithersburg, MD: Chi Rho Press, Inc. ISBN 188849316X.
  • Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743264592.
  • Robert P. George, Jean Bethke Elshtain (Eds.), ed. (2006). The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company. ISBN 1890626643.
  • Robert E. Goss, Amy Adams Squire Strongheart (Eds.), ed. (2008). Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship. New York, NY: The Harrington Park Press, An Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc. ISBN 1560239107.
  • Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 074256326X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • Andrew Sullivan (Editor), ed. (2004). Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con — A Reader, Revised Updated Edition. New York, NY: Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc. ISBN 1400078660. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
  • Oliver, Marilyn Tower (1998). Gay and lesbian rights: a struggle. Enslow Publishers. ISBN 9780894909580.

External links

This article's use of external links may not follow Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Status of same-sex unions around the world
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Antarctica
Gay pride flag Constitutional amendments banning civil unions or same-sex marriages around the world Globe
Same-sex marriage prohibited by
constitutional amendment
Same-sex marriage and civil unions
prohibited by constitutional amendment
LGBTQ topics
Symbols
Pride flags
Gender identity
Third sex / Third gender
Sexual identities
Sexual orientations
Related
History
LGBTQ history
Pre-modern era
16th to 19th century
20th century
21st century
LGBTQ rights by country or territory
LGBTQ rights topics
LGBTQ rights movements
Sexual orientation — Medicine, science and sexology
Societal attitudes
Prejudice and discrimination
Violence against LGBTQ people
Categories: